2. Lewis Creek Reach M19 Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3

3. Lewis Creek Watershed M19

4. Phases of Assessment Phase 1 - Remote Sensing and Existing Data Phase 2 - Qualitative and Rapid Field Assessment Phase 3 - Field Survey Assessment Watershed Reach and Segment-Level Approaches

5. Topographic lines overlaid on Orthos Local Knowledge and NRCS Information 1)Channelization upstream of farm bridge occurred in 60’s 2) Rip-rap routinely installed since at least early 80’s 3)Current farm bridge moved to new location in 1981 4)Past landowners did channel “work” to maintain straighter channel 5)High floods in the late 1980’s 6)Out of bank flows occur about every 2 years, flashy events every year 7)Entire valley bottom has been flooded in past 8)Soil cores done on Lewis Creek Farm confirm presence of glacial lake clays in valley bottom 9)Bank re-vegetation projects occurred in 1990’s on Lewis Creek Farm

6. 1905 1983 Topographic Map Comparison

7. 19421995 Orthophoto Comparison

8. Changes in Planform 1983 Topographic Map

9. (Corridor is approx 475 ft wide at ball field area and approx 375 ft wide along the remainder of the reach) Phase 1 River Corridor Parameters evaluated in Phase 1 Corridor 1)Soils and Geology 2)Land Use and Land Cover 3)Riparian Vegetation 4)Berms, Roads & Improved Paths 5)Development

10. Soils Data and approximate Valley Wall Lines Corridor where soils reviewed Approximate valley wall

11. Parent Material Flood Potential Slope Types Various types of soil parameters that can be evaluated using the soil maps.

12. Reach Number Stream Type Total impact (out of 32) Step 4 Land Use Impact (out of 6) Step 5 Instream Modification Impact (out of 10) Step 6 Floodplain Modification Impact (out of 12) Step 7 Windshield Survey Impact (out of 4) Watershed Size Confinement M19C14345218.213-VB Types of Impacts seen along stream reach: 1)Active Agriculture in corridor (crop) {Step 4} 2)Little to no Riparian vegetation {Step 4} 3)Channel modification (straightening) {Step 5} 4)Bank Armoring (Rock rip-rap) {Step 5} 5)Mid-channel bars {Step 6} 6)Planform changes (meander migration & avulsions) {Step 6} 7)Erosion {Step 7}

13. Phase 2, Rapid Field Assessment §Field verification of Phase 1 data §Collecting data using the Field Form, Rapid Habitat & Geomorphic Assessments §Identifying condition and stream type of the reach

14. Geomorphic and Habitat Assessment Assessment Objectives Identification of: –stream condition as compared to a reference stream of the same type –adjustment process or physical change currently underway in the channel –sensitivity of valley, floodplain, and channel to human or natural changes

15. Examples of field parameters evaluated Valley & Floodplain Corridor Land Use/Land Cover Soils and Geology Riparian Vegetation Bankfull Height and Flood-prone Width Habitat Conditions

16. Evaluating: Bank Vegetation Riparian Vegetation Corridor Land Use Measuring channel data: Width Depth Flood Prone Width Entrenchment

17. Enjoying the point bar for a break and review of parameters. *Sediment size on point bar *Sediment size in different bed features Measuring the distance between riffles

18. Noting: Bank Erosion and Scour Bank Slope Recording Types of Bank Protection: Rip-rap Tree revetments

19. Sediment types seen along reach: 1)Gravels 2)Sands 3)Clays and silts Comparison of upper and lower bank material Fines Small gravels

20. Evaluating types of bed sediment storage seen: Mid-channel bars Point bars Diagonal Bars

21. BD Beaver Activity May Affect Stream by: 1)Changing water levels 2)Altering Sediment deposition locations 3)Influencing planform changes 4)Creating or changing habitat features

22. Reach Number Segment Bankfull Width (ft) Flood- prone Width (ft) Max Depth (ft) Low Bank Height (ft) Entrench- ment Width/ Depth Ratio Sinuosity Channel Slope (Phase1) Incision Ratio Stream Type Stream Type Bed Material Stream Bed Feature Type M19A405003-4.518.7Moderate0.40%-C4 Riffle- Pool *M19B695004-7.224.4Moderate0.40%-C4 Riffle- Pool Reach NumberSegment Habitat Condition Geomorphic Condition Dominant Adjustment Process Concurrent Adjustment Process Stage of Channel Evolution * Channel Sensitivity to Disturbance M19APoor WideningAggredationWidening –III /IV very high to extreme *M19BFair AggredationWideningWidening –III /IV very high to extreme

23. Some of the things that affected the habitat were: 1)Sediment deposition, embedded riffles 2) Lack of riffles and fast deep water, 3) Low diversity of substrate for epifaunal colonization 4) Bank stability / erosion, and 5) Poor riparian buffer protection. * There are good pools in the reach, and many small black-nose dace and creek-chubs were seen. * The upstream half does have good shading from a treed buffer of 25ft to 50ft wide; the downstream buffer mainly herbaceous with a few shrubs and trees mixed in, so little shade is provided to the stream in this section. Some things that affected the geomorphic condition were: 1)Small amount of channel incision 2) Sedimentation 3) Bank failure and scour – over widened channel in locations 4) Changes in planform; avulsions, channel bars, and thalweg not always lined up with planform

24. Phase 3, Survey Level Assessment Further verify the stream type. Establish cross-sections for long term monitoring Evaluate sediment size being transported by stream

25. Flood History From Gage Records

26. Bankfull stage flows in spring of 2002

29. XS 4 XS 5 XS 3 XS 2 XS 1 Channel Planform and Cross-section Location 5 Monumented Cross-sections established

30. Measuring Bankfull and Flood-prone Width Flood-prone elevation Bankfull elevation

31. XS –1 Riffle Width = 33 ft Max Depth = 3.45 ft FPW = ~150 ft D50 = 10.66 mm (medium gravel) Stream Type = C4

32. XS –2 Run Width = 31.74 ft Max Depth = 4.03 ft FPW = ~200 ft D50 = 1.34 mm (very coarse sand) Stream Type = E5

33. XS – 3 Run Width = 27.49 ft Max Depth = 3.49 ft FPW = ~300 ft D50 = 0.57 mm (coarse sand) Stream Type = E5

34. XS – 4 Run Width = 38 ft Max Depth = 3.6 ft FPW = ~300 ft D50 = 0.25 mm (medium sand) Stream Type = C5

35. XS – 5 Riffle Width = 26.28 ft Max Depth = 4.25 ft FPW = ~300 ft D50 = 7.10 mm (fine gravel) Stream Type = E4

36. Valley slope = 0.46% (change in elevation of water surface /down valley length) (13.3 – 7.91 / 1170) Channel Slope = 0.23% ( change in elevation of water surface / channel length) (13.3 – 7.91 / 2348) Channel Longitudinal Profile Beaver dam

37. Runs Total Riffles

38. Example of Prioritizing Reaches (in order of highest to lowest priority) Conservation Reaches- Least disturbed, river structure and vegetation intact Strategic Sites- Highly sensitive to disturbance, impacts may trigger off site response Reaches with High Recovery Potential- Possible self adjustment or minimal management efforts Moderate to Highly Degraded Sites- Require invasive management strategy

39. How the some of the Data from the Assessments has been used to date: 1)Assisting LCA with making recommendation to Town of Starksboro for their management plan of the Cota Farm property 2) Insuring that recreation path and potential structures are out of the flood plain and potential changes in the channels planform 3) Establishing cross-sections for long term monitoring. Ability to determine rate of change laterally and vertically along reach. 4) Providing the USFW with information on where habitat features and riparian planting may be needed

40. * Reach is a good candidate for a Passive Geomorphic Approach Involves the removal of constraints from a river corridor thereby allowing the river, utilizing its own energy and watershed inputs to re- establish its meanders, floodplains, and self maintaining, sustainable equilibrium condition over an extended time period. Active riparian buffer re-vegetation and long-term protection of a river corridor is essential to this alternative.